Read more on Cloud Computing
February 16, 2007 10:45 AM PST
Perspective: It's time for tech to rein in energy waste
See all Perspectives
- Related Stories
-
U.S. servers slurp more power than Mississippi
February 14, 2007 -
Energy Star for efficient servers?
December 29, 2006
We recently calculated the energy consumed by data centers, a critical sector of the IT industry. The findings show that in the U.S. alone, millions of servers--the backbone of our IT infrastructure--run every second of every day of the year, consuming 45 billion kilowatt-hours annually. That's enough electricity to power the state of Mississippi.
The cost is no less shocking. Data centers run up about $2.7 billion in energy bills in the U.S. alone and $7.2 billion across the world. What's more, the study shows that data center power consumption has roughly doubled from 2000 to 2005. Faced with such growth rates, delivering the technology that the world demands without delivering as power-efficient products as possible is quite simply an unsustainable model.
The numbers from the study are a wake-up call. Within the IT industry, we've known that our data center energy consumption is significant, but now we know just how significant it is. We believe we need to continue our current collaborations and also believe it's time to up the ante. The voluntary actions within the IT industry reflect an important trend: the industry's ability, and interest, to self-regulate when it comes to energy efficiency.
However, we need help.
The assistance and direction from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy over the past year have added a critical perspective to our ongoing conversations, and we're eager to see it continue.
As a result of the federal government's approval of HR 5646 in December, representatives of government and industry are meeting this week in Santa Clara, Calif., to begin identifying realistic and lasting solutions. We would challenge all participants in the meeting--as well as the nation's business leaders--to bring the issue of IT energy efficiency from the data center to the boardroom. Here is what we need:
• An annual report on energy efficiency in U.S. data centers, giving the industry an energy "report card" to measure our progress.
• On an individual level, businesses need a mechanism to measure their own progress, and who better to help them develop this tool than the companies that deliver the technology?
• Industry groups must discover avenues to true cooperation in the development of whole system redesign--for too long, data center managers have been challenged with siloed products. But if we work together to innovate energy-efficient systems from power supply to cooling fan, we can move closer to developing truly energy-efficient data centers for our future.
The EPA's national Energy Star program gives us a good example of how private industry can voluntarily work with government to make energy-efficient products a competitive differentiator in the market.
Let's move this beyond home appliances to the technology that drives the Internet. This is an exciting moment for the IT industry. And if we prioritize the incredible benefits by reducing our energy consumption, we can make a real and lasting impact on the future of businesses and the planet.
Biography
Jonathan Koomey is a staff scientist with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a consulting professor at Stanford University. Mario Rivas is executive vice president of computing products at Advanced Micro Devices.
See more CNET content tagged:
data center, energy, consumption, information technology, U.S.
20 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
By the way:
1. Evolution isn't supported by facts
2. There are WMDs in Iraq
3. Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11
4. It's un-American to question your government's leaders.
5. A drug-addict radio host knows more about climate science than nobel-prize winning scientists.
There certainly is a lot of crap going around, but not from liberals. The reason you guys have no credibility anymore is because you put ideology over reality.
It is about simple inefficiency... with average server utilziation (x86 anyways) on the order of 5-10%, it means that 90% or more of the electricity consumed isn't doing ANY useful work. That's just dumb business - whatever your beliefs (or not) in Global warming.
Competitive advantage will accrue to those business who have IT organizations who can deploy and run the RIGHT number of SERVERS, at the best utilzation rates, to cost-effectively enable business... their cost per transaction is dramatically lower, their profits per transaction higher... they can capture market share... etc...
Throwing servers, no matter how "efficient" their chips, or fans, or cooling technology, or whatever... at the challenge results in WASTE.
I would hope that whatever ones political bent, one would understand that waste is dumb, when there are more intelligent solutions.
Regards
Dave
David Wagner
Director, Solutions Marketing
BMC Software
www.bmc.com
Read My Blog!: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://talk.bmc.com/blogs/blog-wagner/david-wagner/" target="_newWindow">http://talk.bmc.com/blogs/blog-wagner/david-wagner/</a>
By the way:
1. Evolution isn't supported by facts
2. There are WMDs in Iraq
3. Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11
4. It's un-American to question your government's leaders.
5. A drug-addict radio host knows more about climate science than nobel-prize winning scientists.
There certainly is a lot of crap going around, but not from liberals. The reason you guys have no credibility anymore is because you put ideology over reality.
It is about simple inefficiency... with average server utilziation (x86 anyways) on the order of 5-10%, it means that 90% or more of the electricity consumed isn't doing ANY useful work. That's just dumb business - whatever your beliefs (or not) in Global warming.
Competitive advantage will accrue to those business who have IT organizations who can deploy and run the RIGHT number of SERVERS, at the best utilzation rates, to cost-effectively enable business... their cost per transaction is dramatically lower, their profits per transaction higher... they can capture market share... etc...
Throwing servers, no matter how "efficient" their chips, or fans, or cooling technology, or whatever... at the challenge results in WASTE.
I would hope that whatever ones political bent, one would understand that waste is dumb, when there are more intelligent solutions.
Regards
Dave
David Wagner
Director, Solutions Marketing
BMC Software
www.bmc.com
Read My Blog!: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://talk.bmc.com/blogs/blog-wagner/david-wagner/" target="_newWindow">http://talk.bmc.com/blogs/blog-wagner/david-wagner/</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606&q=Nuclear" target="_newWindow">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606&q=Nuclear</a>
Second, and more important, I wonder if anyone (who can do something about it!) caught that video? In other words, might Google follow up with a consortium of companies to investigate that tech further?
To respond to the tripe spewed by lingsun above, if you don't believe global warming is an issue, or if you at least don't believe that humans are contributing to the problem then at least consider the fact that we are using up oil faster than we are replacing it. And to extract coal we must rip it out of the ground.
So, with decreasing oil reserves wouldn't you think it wise to find an alternative? What will happen when our children or grandchildren no longer have access to the oil we are using up?
But, closer to the point of this article in dealing with stationary power sources, the vast majority of which use fossil fuels, can you wrap your brain around the concept of how CO2 gets into the air? Sure, carbon exists in all living things so when we (meaning plant, animal, and human life) die, our tissue breaks down and releases that carbon back into the air. Plus, living humans and animals constantly release carbon-based gases back into the air through just about any orifice.
Now, that is recycled carbon that I'm talking about. The problem with fossil fuels is that we pull hidden, "ancient" carbon out of the ground and add it to the carbon already in the atmosphere. Can you begin to see why burning fossil fuels may be cause for concern? We've had a relatively stable percentage of carbon in our atmosphere up until about a 100 years ago (at least stable enough for vast majority of earth's time to develop the plant and animal life we see around us today). Since then we've been increasing that percentage by burning fossil fuels. And it is fairly well established theory that CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere. Think about "100 years". That is a small fraction of time even when compared just to *recorded* human history, let alone compared to just the current era after the last extinction of the dinosaurs.
So given these points doesn't it seem we should err on the side of caution if for no other reason than because the supply of oil is not being replenished, and maybe because I wouldn't want a coal mine in my back yard? I'm guessing you wouldn't either?
So, with decreasing oil reserves wouldn't you think it wise to find an alternative? What will happen when our children or grandchildren no longer have access to the oil we are using up?"
I agree. This shouldn't have anything to do with politics or ideology, in fact even if you think global warming is actually a hoax, it should make sense to find alternatives to fossil fuels for many other reasons (pollution, the fact it will run out, oil money finances terrorism, etc.). However don't get your hopes up; one thing I've learned is you certainly can't reason with a devout right-winger. For certain people (most likely the people who still think Bush is a great leader), global warming denial is a sort of religion. Even if they finally admit global warming is happening, they'll just spew some nonsense about how solving it'll cost the economy trillions or hurt billions of people (as if runaway global warming will be much better), all without any evidence of course. Or else they'll say environmental groups and scientists are just doing it to make money, how exactly they're profiting from it is never really explained (and as if Exxon Mobil's paid shills' only concern is to make sure the public gets the truth).
Anyone who cares and is smart enough to see the truth will just have to find a way to make a difference without a certain ideologically-driven group of people (just like the rest of America finally realized there were no WMDS in Iraq, even though some people still think Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11).
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606&q=Nuclear" target="_newWindow">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606&q=Nuclear</a>
Second, and more important, I wonder if anyone (who can do something about it!) caught that video? In other words, might Google follow up with a consortium of companies to investigate that tech further?
To respond to the tripe spewed by lingsun above, if you don't believe global warming is an issue, or if you at least don't believe that humans are contributing to the problem then at least consider the fact that we are using up oil faster than we are replacing it. And to extract coal we must rip it out of the ground.
So, with decreasing oil reserves wouldn't you think it wise to find an alternative? What will happen when our children or grandchildren no longer have access to the oil we are using up?
But, closer to the point of this article in dealing with stationary power sources, the vast majority of which use fossil fuels, can you wrap your brain around the concept of how CO2 gets into the air? Sure, carbon exists in all living things so when we (meaning plant, animal, and human life) die, our tissue breaks down and releases that carbon back into the air. Plus, living humans and animals constantly release carbon-based gases back into the air through just about any orifice.
Now, that is recycled carbon that I'm talking about. The problem with fossil fuels is that we pull hidden, "ancient" carbon out of the ground and add it to the carbon already in the atmosphere. Can you begin to see why burning fossil fuels may be cause for concern? We've had a relatively stable percentage of carbon in our atmosphere up until about a 100 years ago (at least stable enough for vast majority of earth's time to develop the plant and animal life we see around us today). Since then we've been increasing that percentage by burning fossil fuels. And it is fairly well established theory that CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere. Think about "100 years". That is a small fraction of time even when compared just to *recorded* human history, let alone compared to just the current era after the last extinction of the dinosaurs.
So given these points doesn't it seem we should err on the side of caution if for no other reason than because the supply of oil is not being replenished, and maybe because I wouldn't want a coal mine in my back yard? I'm guessing you wouldn't either?
So, with decreasing oil reserves wouldn't you think it wise to find an alternative? What will happen when our children or grandchildren no longer have access to the oil we are using up?"
I agree. This shouldn't have anything to do with politics or ideology, in fact even if you think global warming is actually a hoax, it should make sense to find alternatives to fossil fuels for many other reasons (pollution, the fact it will run out, oil money finances terrorism, etc.). However don't get your hopes up; one thing I've learned is you certainly can't reason with a devout right-winger. For certain people (most likely the people who still think Bush is a great leader), global warming denial is a sort of religion. Even if they finally admit global warming is happening, they'll just spew some nonsense about how solving it'll cost the economy trillions or hurt billions of people (as if runaway global warming will be much better), all without any evidence of course. Or else they'll say environmental groups and scientists are just doing it to make money, how exactly they're profiting from it is never really explained (and as if Exxon Mobil's paid shills' only concern is to make sure the public gets the truth).
Anyone who cares and is smart enough to see the truth will just have to find a way to make a difference without a certain ideologically-driven group of people (just like the rest of America finally realized there were no WMDS in Iraq, even though some people still think Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11).
server room... hard. Not beacuse of any touchy-feely
environmental concerns, but because electricity is expensive.
Besides, there's already been a huge pile of articles covering
ways to reduce power consumption in the datacenter (DC power,
208VAC power supplies, blades, etc).
This smacks too much of "me-too"-ism.
/P
server room... hard. Not beacuse of any touchy-feely
environmental concerns, but because electricity is expensive.
Besides, there's already been a huge pile of articles covering
ways to reduce power consumption in the datacenter (DC power,
208VAC power supplies, blades, etc).
This smacks too much of "me-too"-ism.
/P
Each one only uses a small amount of electricity but there's literally billions of them out there.
"AMD: Performing customer-centric innovation"
the latest advertising video from amd. In an IT industry full of hype and crap surely amd-ati are at the top of the game and probably the less believable of any, in anything they undertake.
"Now we are concentrating on the political football, [and in reality of some serious concern], the environment and will forego our already diminished technological capabilities in favor of hoping that this move will drum up business." LOL
"AMD: Performing customer-centric innovation"
the latest advertising video from amd. In an IT industry full of hype and crap surely amd-ati are at the top of the game and probably the less believable of any, in anything they undertake.
"Now we are concentrating on the political football, [and in reality of some serious concern], the environment and will forego our already diminished technological capabilities in favor of hoping that this move will drum up business." LOL
Each one only uses a small amount of electricity but there's literally billions of them out there.